• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Wisconsin Voter ID

SezMe

post-pre-born
SezMe
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
25,183
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
For the third time, Wisconsin's Voter ID law has been found to be unconstitutional. Only this time, Scott and his GOPers got a real smack-down:

The ruling is an overwhelming win for plaintiffs, who argued that the voter ID law suppresses ballot access in the state. And while the decision could be overturned on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the law has also already been blocked by two state court decisions, one of which is still in effect.

.....

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman found not just that the law disproportionately deters minorities and low-income individuals from voting; but also that purported instances of voter impersonation are so infrequent, if they exist at all, that “no rational person could be worried about it.”

......

He points out that Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) lawyers could not identify a single instance of known voter impersonation in Wisconsin’s recent past, even though that is the primary justification for the requirement that voters show photo identification.
Click to expand...

My highlights.
 
I don't agree with the rationality of the ruling. The ID requirement is pretty ubiquitous through many routine procedures already and community efforts actually facilitate the process of getting people the resources they need to be able to vote, whether it's travel to the the voting venue or otherwise. I see nothing wrong with requiring an ID for voting as long as a means of providing easy access to the ID venues are provided so they can get the ID's easily. Considering the kind of volunteer efforts that have been put together in the past I should think this issues' not as bad as the judges in this case suggest it to be.... this should hardly be a political issue, you're talking about a basic right that is still quite fragile in areas where the voter margin is small enough for any level of fraud to sway the vote.
 
Last edited:
Fortunately there are plenty of irrational people to worry about it. As evidenced already by this thread.
 
Most of the rest of the world including our neighbors in Canada and Mexico have voter ID laws as a proactive reasonable measure to help insure honest elections. Somehow, just somehow, they manage without people whining about disenfranchisement.
 
And somehow, just somehow, we managed to hold elections for 2 centuries without voter ID laws.
 
To vote in California I need to show my ID.

I suppose there are so many democrate voters, it's us Republicans that get disenfranchised. So the ACLU don't care. ;)
 
Do other democracies require voters to carry photo IDs when they vote?

Many do, but the laws aren’t as strict as those in Texas and South Carolina. According to a Harvard Law & Policy Review study, plenty of democracies do require voters to show identification, but many make allowances for those citizens who, for whatever reason, don’t have official government IDs.

From the report:

Poll workers in Ireland can ask voters for proof of identity, but voters have a choice of “five different forms of photo ID, in addition to bank books, credit cards, checkbooks and marriage certificates.”

“In Switzerland, every registered voter is sent a registration card prior to an election, and if the voter brings her registration card to the polling place, no additional identification is needed.”

“Canada permits any voter who lacks one of the allowed forms of photo identification to present two of forty-five other forms of identification or documentation that have the voter’s name and address on at least one. Acceptable documents include leases, student transcripts, and utility bills.”

Sweden’s policy is a bit more vague, requiring that a “voter who is not known to the voting clerks [produce] an identity document or in another way verify her or his identity.”

“India allows the use of fifteen different types of identification, ranging from property documents to arms licenses to income tax identity cards. Included, too, are forms of identification most likely to be possessed by the poor.... For instance, voters can present ration cards issued to the poor to allow them to buy food staples and kerosene oil at subsidized prices.”

That’s in addition to many countries that don’t require ID to vote, such as “Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (with the exception of Northern Ireland),” the authors wrote.

They also pointed out that in many other countries, it’s much easier to obtain identification than it is in the United States because ID cards are issued to all citizens automatically:
Click to expand...

Link (My emphasis added)

I also imagine those other democracies don't pass laws limiting voting hours in an effort to make it more difficult for certain constituencies to vote. But you know, the Confederate Party has to fight the demographic trends by keeping Those People from voting somehow.
 
maxpower1227 said:
Link (My emphasis added)

I also imagine those other democracies don't pass laws limiting voting hours in an effort to make it more difficult for certain constituencies to vote. But you know, the Confederate Party has to fight the demographic trends by keeping Those People from voting somehow.
Click to expand...


Dems playing race cards. So typical.:rolleyes:
 
maxpower1227 said:
Link (My emphasis added)

I also imagine those other democracies don't pass laws limiting voting hours in an effort to make it more difficult for certain constituencies to vote.
Click to expand...
Then the solution would be to support legislation to make the ID's easy to obtain if that's the core problem you see with the these kinds of laws. And push for reform of those laws to better facilitate obtaining them where they extend beyond the scope that they should. That's hardly a debate in my opinion to want to ensure that the laws function the way that they're intended while also protecting voter's rights. But suggesting that this is some sort of voter suppression/racism push belongs in the conspiracy section.
 
Last edited:
Don't want to be accused of racism? Stop supporting racist people and policies. No informed person thinks these laws are really about voter fraud.
 
maxpower1227 said:
And somehow, just somehow, we managed to hold elections for 2 centuries without voter ID laws.
Click to expand...
You can also hold elections by writing your selection on the back of a napkin. That doesn't make it the best approach.

Link (My emphasis added)
Click to expand...
And many of the voter ID laws in the states allow multiple forms of ID including free government issued ID as well as provisional voting with the ID to follow. All fine by me. Reasonable actions to help ensure honest elections that doesn't disenfranchise anyone.

I also imagine those other democracies don't pass laws limiting voting hours in an effort to make it more difficult for certain constituencies to vote.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with voter ID.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Then the solution would be to support legislation to make the ID's easy to obtain if that's the core problem you see with the these kinds of laws. And push for reform of those laws to better facilitate obtaining them where they extend beyond the scope that they should. That's hardly a debate in my opinion. But suggesting that this is some sort of voter suppression/racism push belongs in the conspiracy section.
Click to expand...

Are the people pushing voter ID laws taking any steps to make IDs accessible to people who don't have them? Why should that be left up to others?

Again, only deluded morons think that "voter fraud" is a real problem that these laws are meant to address. They are designed to benefit Republicans, which is why they are being pushed exclusively by Republicans.
 
In addition, if Republicans (and it is, to my knowledge, mostly GOP legislatures pushing these laws) think that this won't hurt them, they're wrong. For example, there was considerable blowback against them in the form of many more minorities getting pissed off about these laws and subsequently working even harder to get registered and out to vote at the polls.

I think the GOP is, no surprise, fighting a losing battle on this one. They may win some skirmishes here and there, but the more they keep up this kind of thing, the more they're cutting their own throats in the long run.
 
maxpower1227 said:
Are the people pushing voter ID laws taking any steps to make IDs accessible to people who don't have them? Why should that be left up to others?
Click to expand...
I haven't studied the specifics of the Texas or South Carolina laws so I can't make any immediate assessment of them, but my opinion of such laws in general is that they should alleviate the burdens that might deter voters from going through the effort of obtaining one. I don't care if it takes a democrat or a republican to do it, just push for it.

As to leaving that task to others, in general elections are taken seriously by volunteer groups so while I understand your questioning if we should be leaving that responsibility to others I point to that same aspect of campaigns as an example to exemplify why I think some of the concerns about the laws themselves at least in concept are overblown. And in spite of my political disagreements with him, Obama was quite successful with his 2008 grassroots effort to get the vote out and I think his success there is a pretty decent example. Still, any law requiring ID's would have provide the relevant balance.

maxpower1227 said:
Again, only deluded morons think that "voter fraud" is a real problem that these laws are meant to address. They are designed to benefit Republicans, which is why they are being pushed exclusively by Republicans.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think any level of voter fraud should be taken seriously no matter how rare it may be. The punishments levied for committing it are severe for a reason. Having said that, my angle is that not having these protections in place leaves the door open to either party taking advantage of it. But any legislation aimed at protecting the confidence in the electoral process fundamentally needs to also balance and protect people from undue burden, and ultimately my reading of the decision in this case is that the state wasn't able to provide a sufficiently good case to achieve that. Still wouldn't be surprised if it came up again later though.
 
Last edited:
The judge is exactly right. If you start with a law designed to stop a crime that virtually never happens, yet it puts a burden on millions of Americans trying to exercise a fundamental right, then you've passed a bad law.

Conservatives: close your eyes, and picture a law that raised your taxes by $0.01 over a dozen years, forbade people from carrying guns at Obama speeches and maternity wards, and raised the minimum wage to $7.26 by 2050. Picturing that? That's what it's like for normal people to lose their right to vote, if you'd like to get an idea of the emotional trauma.

Seriously, there's a reason why the GOP keeps passing these laws in the absence of any justification. It's because they think it will help them win. That's despicable.
 
casebro said:
To vote in California I need to show my ID.

I suppose there are so many democrate voters, it's us Republicans that get disenfranchised. So the ACLU don't care. ;)
Click to expand...

No, you don't. I don't show my ID when I vote.
 
Unabogie said:
The judge is exactly right. If you start with a law designed to stop a crime that virtually never happens, yet it puts a burden on millions of Americans trying to exercise a fundamental right, then you've passed a bad law.
Click to expand...

I agree with you for once. Voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem.
 
ravdin said:
No, you don't. I don't show my ID when I vote.
Click to expand...

I don't anymore either- I vote by mail.

And if I had my sample ballot with me, that was taken as an ID- name and address on the mailing label.

But when I showed up without the sample ballot I had to show driver's license.
 
Last edited:
Neally said:
Most of the rest of the world including our neighbors in Canada and Mexico have voter ID laws as a proactive reasonable measure to help insure honest elections.
Click to expand...


Except that, in Canada at least, the list of what is acceptable ID is fairly lengthy and thus a voter has plenty of options. Indeed, a voter is very likely to have some of the necessary identification types just a natural matter of course of being a citizen. Here are the current voter ID requirements for Canadian federal elections. As that list shows, plenty of options, and a government-issued piece of identification is not required (though that naturally makes it easier).
 
casebro said:
I don't anymore either- I vote by mail.

And if I had my sample ballot with me, that was taken as an ID- name and address on the mailing label.

But when I showed up without the sample ballot I had to show driver's license.
Click to expand...

Nothing I could find says that ID is required to vote in CA unless you are voting for the first time and left certain information off of your registration. If that is the case, there are over 30 acceptable forms of identifying yourself, including :

Driver license or state-issued ID card
Passport
Employee ID card
Credit or debit card
Military ID
Student ID
Health club ID
Insurance plan ID
a recent utility bill
bank statement
government check
government paycheck
document issued by a governmental agency

It looks very similar to how PA does it (ignoring its own new ID law which is in a sort of limbo). First time you vote at a given precinct, you need to bring either your voter registration card or some form of identification which can include things like a utility bill. After that, you sign the book they have, and from then on every time you vote, you just give them your name and sign the book; your signature is compared to the one you gave the last time you voted.

ETA:

My standard rant on the issue.... In person voter fraud in the form of showing up to vote as a different person, is exceedingly rare. So rare, it is for all practical purposes, non-existent. The reward is just too little for such a high risk. If there is going to be voter fraud at any significant amount, it's going to happen at a different level that voter ID is not going to help. If anything, we should be fixing voter registration to eliminate duplicates, deceased, and people who have moved away. I just see voter ID laws as a solution in search of a problem.

That said, I'm not inherently against requiring id when you vote. But if you must go that route, it needs to be something slowly introduced over the course of several elections (IMO presidential ones) and there must be a means of ensuring everyone can easily obtain acceptable ID for free.
 
Last edited:
Is that the one that blocked the guy who wrote it from voting because it was too restrictive? When you write a law that even you can't follow it might be a problem.
 
Unabogie said:
The judge is exactly right. If you start with a law designed to stop a crime that virtually never happens, yet it puts a burden on millions of Americans trying to exercise a fundamental right, then you've passed a bad law.
Click to expand...

You would think the party of small government would be on this side of the issue.

SezMe said:
I guess you forgot about that Pennsylvania Republican who explicitly stated the purpose in his state was to elect Mittens.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
maxpower1227 said:
Are the people pushing voter ID laws taking any steps to make IDs accessible to people who don't have them?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. In fact, the Wisconsin law in question does exactly that. For example, here's the provision which makes ID's available for free:

"343.50 (5) (a) 3. The department may not charge a fee to an applicant for the initial issuance or reinstatement of an identification card if the applicant is a U.S. citizen who will be at least 18 years of age on the date of the next election and the applicant requests that the identification card be provided without charge for purposes of voting."

There are other things it does as well to make ID access easier, such as making university photo ID's valid for voting.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
ETA:

That said, I'm not inherently against requiring id when you vote. But if you must go that route, it needs to be something slowly introduced over the course of several elections (IMO presidential ones) and there must be a means of ensuring everyone can easily obtain acceptable ID for free.
Click to expand...

This... I would be able to agree with this part. The idea in of itself is fine with me. Its just that since its not an established policy I think would be best practice to build protections into those laws from the get go and probably this is one issue where national standards would work best instead of a patchwork. Fixing issues from the voter registration stage also isnt such a bad idea
 
Grizzly Bear said:
This... I would be able to agree with this part. The idea in of itself is fine with me. Its just that since its not an established policy I think would be best practice to build protections into those laws from the get go
Click to expand...

There are protections built into the law. Every voter ID law I've ever seen has included the ability for people without ID's to cast provisional ballots, for example, and all of them have a requirement for states to provide free ID's. Voter ID laws are popular with the public, but built-in protections would probably also be popular. Why aren't democrats focused on that, rather than on categorical opposition?
 
Ziggurat said:
Why aren't democrats focused on that, rather than on categorical opposition?
Click to expand...

Because, as it is quite clearly articulated in the decision cited in the OP, there is no point to these laws.

I'm sure a "Free Ice Cream for Everyone!" law would poll quite well. Perhaps you should contact your Congressperson to get that legislation moving forward since you seem so fond of pointless but popular laws.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat is also ignoring the other aspects of these voter suppression laws. The drastic reduction in voting hours, the elimination of weekend voting, etc. These are measures specifically designed to counter things like the "Souls to the Polls" voter drives that bring the members of largely black congregations out to vote on Sundays. They have nothing whatsoever to do with fighting non-existent voter fraud, and everything to do with voter suppression.
 
johnny karate said:
Because, as it is quite clearly articulated in the decision cited in the OP, there is no point to these laws.
Click to expand...

Almost every other developing country feels otherwise. Are they all wrong? Is there something special about Americans which renders photo ID's irrelevant for voting (but not for air travel, etc?)?
 
Ziggurat said:
Almost every other developing country feels otherwise. Are they all wrong? Is there something special about Americans which renders photo ID's irrelevant for voting (but not for air travel, etc?)?
Click to expand...
The bar you want to use is what other developing countries use? I'd prefer a higher standard.

Lemme ask you Zig, do you honestly believe all the laws Republicans passed in the immediate wake of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the Supremes was honestly aimed at eliminating voter fraud? In Indiana, as a great example, the proponents admitted that they could not find ONE SINGLE CASE of voter fraud yet passed an ID law anyway.
 
Ziggurat said:
Almost every other developing country feels otherwise. Are they all wrong?
Click to expand...

When the US was a developing country, it used such laws to prevent over 75% of the population from voting (women, blacks, various immigrant groups varying from county to county). We decided that wasn't a good thing a long time ago.

That still developing countries haven't figured it out comes as no surprise.
 
Ziggurat said:
Almost every other developing country feels otherwise. Are they all wrong? Is there something special about Americans which renders photo ID's irrelevant for voting (but not for air travel, etc?)?
Click to expand...

So "Do it because other countries are doing it" is your rationale for why the U.S. should enact certain legislation?

Does that go for healthcare and guns as well, or is it just in this one particular area that the U.S. should model itself on other countries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom